I think one of the objectives the Germans need to have is to attack far enough where they can activate Army Group A/B and that usually takes care of overloading at the Army Group level, although much work would need to be done in reorganizing the rest of the army, especially AGC.

Given the choices, I think you are better off leaving it with an overloaded AGS at this point in time.

Consider AG Antonescu as the cleaner behind the front. Attach to it all your Romanian construction units and those Romanian forces which you intend to keep back as garrisons. Normally, once I resume the advance in '42, I'll keep 4 Romanian Army and VII and XI Romanian Corps under its command as line of communications duty. The 'cream' of the Romanian army, I normally concentrate in four Corps under 3 Romanian Army for active campaigning, which is then put under one of the army groups when AGS splits.

As suggested above, I would leave 11 Army under AGS and reattach it to one of its 'splinters'. The OKH solution is also sensible. Its not wise to put good German units under Romanian generals since the bulk of them are rather mediocre.

The real question has to do with Overloading; I don't think I understand the penalties for overloading. smokindave brought up a very good question, that I asked a couple months ago, and I don't think anyone answered. Only the Devs can, really.

Is an overloaded HQ with a good commander going to perform better than a non-overloaded one with a crap commander?

As to how to use AG Anton, I personally think you are better-off attaching armies to OKH, which can't overload, and probably has a decent leader, rather than use AG Anton, which is commanded by Marshall Antonesccu. Garrisons get no benefit anyway from attaching to AG Anton rather than something else.

The best use of AG Anton, IMO, is rail repair. Move it to the general area you want to repair rail, and it will deploy it's construction units in that general area. Not always where you want them, but it can help. In 1941, I think that means keeping AG Anton pretty far forward in most cases, so it can fill-in spur lines and other connectors to stitch the rail network together before Blizzard. In 1942, I have it back of the front, filling-in all the rails to create redundancy, and make partisans irrelevant.

The best use of AG Anton, IMO, is rail repair. Move it to the general area you want to repair rail, and it will deploy it's construction units in that general area. Not always where you want them, but it can help. In 1941, I think that means keeping AG Anton pretty far forward in most cases, so it can fill-in spur lines and other connectors to stitch the rail network together before Blizzard. In 1942, I have it back of the front, filling-in all the rails to create redundancy, and make partisans irrelevant.

Damnit, i wish i had read this before i disbanded AG Anton to prop up the Rumanian manpower pool defecit. "20,000 typists", as someone said ;) I didnt think of all the rail repair drones

_____________________________

"Gauls! We have nothing to fear; except perhaps that the sky may fall on our heads tomorrow. But as we all know, tomorrow never comes!!" - Chief Vitalstatistix

The best use of AG Anton, IMO, is rail repair. Move it to the general area you want to repair rail, and it will deploy it's construction units in that general area. Not always where you want them, but it can help. In 1941, I think that means keeping AG Anton pretty far forward in most cases, so it can fill-in spur lines and other connectors to stitch the rail network together before Blizzard. In 1942, I have it back of the front, filling-in all the rails to create redundancy, and make partisans irrelevant.

Damnit, i wish i had read this before i disbanded AG Anton to prop up the Rumanian manpower pool defecit. "20,000 typists", as someone said ;) I didnt think of all the rail repair drones

It's not that big a deal. You can accomplish the same thing by using a Romanian Corps HQ; you probably have an extra one or two of those

The real question has to do with Overloading; I don't think I understand the penalties for overloading. smokindave brought up a very good question, that I asked a couple months ago, and I don't think anyone answered. Only the Devs can, really.

Is an overloaded HQ with a good commander going to perform better than a non-overloaded one with a crap commander?

There have been a number of threads on overloading; unfortunately I can't locate any of them

While I am not sure I have the correct process, I can describe the process that I think I understand which might be the correct process . Maybe It is quite straight-forward to compare the effects of two different leaders with two different loads; however it is time-consuming to calculate

1. The probability that any given leader with characteristic X, NOT overloaded, and in direct command of a unit will make his die roll is X/10 2. This probability is divided by two for each link in the command chain above the first (e.g. Army in command of a Corps) 3. The probability that any given leader with characteristic X, overloaded by N points, and in direct command of a unit will make his die roll is X/(10+N)

Note first that this formula states that there is always a non-zero probability that a leader will make his die roll no matter how overloaded the HQ

So, the difference (D) in sucess probability for two leaders at the same level but with one better by X1 but over loaded by N is

D= (X+X1)/(10+N) - X/10 (divided by the appropriate power of 2 due to the number of command links to the actual combat unit (see #2 above)

or in a form which makes the relationships a little easer to see

D = (X1 –N*X/10)/(10+N)

So just to take a couple of quick examples:

1. if the bad leader has a rating of 4 (X) and a good leader a rating of 8 (X1=4), the good leader will give better results UNTIL he is overloaded by 10

2. If the same two leaders are used but use an overload of 20, then the bad leader will give better results by an increase in probability-of-success by 4/30 or 0.133 or 13.3 percentage points divided by the right power of 2 for command links (for an AG example the POS difference would be 3.4 percentage points; an overload of 40 would only increase this difference to 6.0 percentage points)

(Disclaimer: any algebraic mistakes are solely the fault of the poster who has not done anything like this in some decades )

Not in front of gaming PC. If the support units were in the top level HQ which i disbanded, where do they go? There is no "national reserve" for SU's AFAIK

AG Antonescu is subordinated to the Rumanian High Command HQ, in Bucharest. Look there, and any SUs that were assigned to AG Antonescu should have gone there.

That's correct, just grab a spare Corps HQ (the Romanians have more than they need), fill it up with those Construction Units by ASSIGN, which pulls from the Romanian High Command, and presto, you'll have an awesome Rail Repair HQ. You can probably spare 2, actually. (just make sure those HQs are not assigned to OKH, as they won't pull from RHC if they are)

Not sure how many Corps HQs the Romanians get, but seems like more than they need

The real question has to do with Overloading; I don't think I understand the penalties for overloading. smokindave brought up a very good question, that I asked a couple months ago, and I don't think anyone answered. Only the Devs can, really.

Is an overloaded HQ with a good commander going to perform better than a non-overloaded one with a crap commander?

There have been a number of threads on overloading; unfortunately I can't locate any of them

While I am not sure I have the correct process, I can describe the process that I think I understand which might be the correct process . Maybe It is quite straight-forward to compare the effects of two different leaders with two different loads; however it is time-consuming to calculate

1. The probability that any given leader with characteristic X, NOT overloaded, and in direct command of a unit will make his die roll is X/10 2. This probability is divided by two for each link in the command chain above the first (e.g. Army in command of a Corps) 3. The probability that any given leader with characteristic X, overloaded by N points, and in direct command of a unit will make his die roll is X/(10+N)

Note first that this formula states that there is always a non-zero probability that a leader will make his die roll no matter how overloaded the HQ

So, the difference (D) in sucess probability for two leaders at the same level but with one better by X1 but over loaded by N is

D= (X+X1)/(10+N) - X/10 (divided by the appropriate power of 2 due to the number of command links to the actual combat unit (see #2 above)

or in a form which makes the relationships a little easer to see

D = (X1 –N*X/10)/(10+N)

So just to take a couple of quick examples:

1. if the bad leader has a rating of 4 (X) and a good leader a rating of 8 (X1=4), the good leader will give better results UNTIL he is overloaded by 10

2. If the same two leaders are used but use an overload of 20, then the bad leader will give better results by an increase in probability-of-success by 4/30 or 0.133 or 13.3 percentage points divided by the right power of 2 for command links (for an AG example the POS difference would be 3.4 percentage points; an overload of 40 would only increase this difference to 6.0 percentage points)

(Disclaimer: any algebraic mistakes are solely the fault of the poster who has not done anything like this in some decades )

Finally someone trying to answer this question. Can anyone confirm Pompack is on the right track?

If the critical number is overload by 10, then that must mean (If I understand correctly):

-Since AGS will generally overload by more than 10, you are better off assigning to AG Anton (at least until A-B split) -Since Corps will generally NOT overload by that, however, you are probably better off overloading a German Corps by 2 or so, rather than assign units to Romanian Corps

The numbers are valid for the HQ that the units are attached to direct - Corps on the Axis side. One or more levels above, overloading has less impact and range from the unit to the leader's HQ is also considered.

Crappy leaders are crappy - good leaders can handle some overload, but don't overload Corps.

The real question has to do with Overloading; I don't think I understand the penalties for overloading. smokindave brought up a very good question, that I asked a couple months ago, and I don't think anyone answered. Only the Devs can, really.

Is an overloaded HQ with a good commander going to perform better than a non-overloaded one with a crap commander?

There have been a number of threads on overloading; unfortunately I can't locate any of them

While I am not sure I have the correct process, I can describe the process that I think I understand which might be the correct process . Maybe It is quite straight-forward to compare the effects of two different leaders with two different loads; however it is time-consuming to calculate

1. The probability that any given leader with characteristic X, NOT overloaded, and in direct command of a unit will make his die roll is X/10 2. This probability is divided by two for each link in the command chain above the first (e.g. Army in command of a Corps) 3. The probability that any given leader with characteristic X, overloaded by N points, and in direct command of a unit will make his die roll is X/(10+N)

Note first that this formula states that there is always a non-zero probability that a leader will make his die roll no matter how overloaded the HQ

So, the difference (D) in sucess probability for two leaders at the same level but with one better by X1 but over loaded by N is

D= (X+X1)/(10+N) - X/10 (divided by the appropriate power of 2 due to the number of command links to the actual combat unit (see #2 above)

or in a form which makes the relationships a little easer to see

D = (X1 –N*X/10)/(10+N)

So just to take a couple of quick examples:

1. if the bad leader has a rating of 4 (X) and a good leader a rating of 8 (X1=4), the good leader will give better results UNTIL he is overloaded by 10

2. If the same two leaders are used but use an overload of 20, then the bad leader will give better results by an increase in probability-of-success by 4/30 or 0.133 or 13.3 percentage points divided by the right power of 2 for command links (for an AG example the POS difference would be 3.4 percentage points; an overload of 40 would only increase this difference to 6.0 percentage points)

(Disclaimer: any algebraic mistakes are solely the fault of the poster who has not done anything like this in some decades )

Finally someone trying to answer this question. Can anyone confirm Pompack is on the right track?

If the critical number is overload by 10, then that must mean (If I understand correctly):

-Since AGS will generally overload by more than 10, you are better off assigning to AG Anton (at least until A-B split) -Since Corps will generally NOT overload by that, however, you are probably better off overloading a German Corps by 2 or so, rather than assign units to Romanian Corps

Not sure on that last one, can someone move this forward?

Careful. I am not disputing your conclusion, however remember that I was too lazy to look up the AG Anton ratings. My example was only valid for the specific cases where the AG Anton ratings were exactly half of the AGS ratings. For a case where the ratings are 6 and 4 respectively for example, the crossover point would be at N=5

I would attach 3rd & 4th Rom Army to AG Ant. as soon as possible in 1941. Then I would move Romanian units under 11th army to 3rd & 4th Rom Army.

Agreed. That is what I try to do.

Indirectly, this tends to help relieve AGS as well.

It takes a while and I find I have to transfer Rom units to Rom HC until I can get the AP cost low enough to allow transfering 3rd & 4th Army to AG Ant. But at least it costs 0 APs to transfer from Rom HC.